On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 03:18:22PM +0200, Toon Claes wrote: > Justin Tobler <jltobler@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > That's fair. Between `odb_backend` and `odb_alternate`, I would probably > > still prefer the former, but ultimately I'll acclimate to whatever is > > choosen. :) > > > > -Justin > > I feel you. But speaking as a non-native English-speaking person, I can > settle for "alternate" because I can still wire my brain to give it the > meaning we're using here. > > But if you like another name, I want to steer away from "backend" as > well. As mentioned elsewhere, a "backend" sounds like an implementation > of an object database, not the instance of an odb. But I'm open to other > suggestions. I've been browsing thesaurus for a bit, unfortunately I > didn't find anything better. This ultimately _will_ host the backend implementations -- every alternate is backed by one specific backend. The problem why we still wanted to steer away from "backend" is that `odb_backend` rather sounds as if the complete object database has one backend that can be switched. That's why we settled on "alternate" instead, to clarify that there is not a 1:1 relationship between the object database and the respective backends. `odb_source` does not have the same problem as `odb_backend`, so I definitely think it's a way better name. But the reason why I think that "alternate" is the better name is that I think it will get quite confusing if we have both the terms "alternate" and "source". It would make some of the interfaces quite awkward because it wouldn't always be clear what exactly we are handling at any point in time. Patrick
